User talk:GregJackP/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Bristlecone pines are really interesting trees

Have you seen many pictures of them? Here is a nice gallery. They certainly twist and warp in all manner of ways - a very chaotic growth pattern. Beautiful trees; I can't imagine there being much use for such inconsistent wood though (other than firewood for those who need to keep things warm). Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More suitable for some uses than others, no doubt. Minor4th 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

From the fist

• Gyrfalcon
• Goshawk

Thought you'd find those interesting. Minor4th 05:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

RE: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw

Hi GregJackP,

Please take a look at my response over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw. There is nothing wrong with having two accounts, especially when one of them is identified with my real-life name; and aside from one lapse in May 2009 I've been an upstanding contributor and I hope to continue to be.

Regards,

Andrew Gradman editing as JD Caselaw (talk) (due to Wikibreak enforcer). 09:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your account

Hi. Could you explain why the logs show that you created this account at 02:29, 22 November 2006, yet didn't make your first edit until 14:36, 27 January 2010? I assume you were using another account during that time, correct? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was a lurker. Is there a reason for the question? I've already been through an SPI and cleared by checkuser, but based on the history in the CC area, I'm a little suspicious of your question. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a reason for my question, as I'm analyzing every account that is participating in the arbcom case. I don't understand why you would create an account in 2006 that you wouldn't use until 2010. Could you explain that to me? The simplest explanation is that you wanted to reserve the account name and were too busy to edit at the time. As for lurking, I can understand that, and for me, that's an adequate explanation. As for your friend Minor4th, his account has been quite active on climate change articles, while yours has been less so. Would that be an accurate observation? Sorry to bother you. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was scared to edit initially, afraid I would screw something up, so I lurked off an on for several years. As for Minor4th, you would have to ask him, but I do know that neither of us knew or cared about AGW/CC until we mentioned WMC in regards to administrator abuse in an ill-advised article I wrote. At that point the cabal turned on us, and due to the intensity and severity of the attacks, both of us became interested. Neither of us understood the underhanded methods that a number in the AGW alarmist camp would go to, and the complete mockery that they made of the WP rules. I have a natural affinity towards the oppressed, and Minor4th has a strong sense of justice, so he is interested in seeing AGW skeptics treated fairly. It's a tough row to hoe, but we feel that someone needs to stand up for what is fair and right. You're welcome to join us. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

^^What he said. Minor4th 03:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is consistent with something that I have long thought, which is that many Wikipedia editors view global warming contrarians as the scrappy underdogs fighting against the big bad scientific establishment. This is consistent with the oft-made observation that Wikipedia appeals to those of a libertarian, "objectivist" viewpoint. I don't mean this in any pejorative way; it's just that I like to try and understand where others are coming from. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I usually pull for the underdog. I generally have no beef with the big bad scientific establishment, but there is what I perceive to be an imbalance and a pretty pervasive unfairness to those who are trying to edit anything other than the mainstream consensus view. Minor4th 04:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I and, I think, ATren have said something similar as to why we became involved in the topic also. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, GregJackP, but after reviewing the old SPI and taking a closer look at both of your accounts, I had trouble finding overlapping edits indicating that you both just happened to be online at the same time. What I found instead, could be described as "meatpuppetry" if one assumes you are two different people, and "sockpuppetry" if one assumes you are same, such that one logs off and on using two different connections. I realize that the SPI was closed due to lack of evidence, and I also realize that for all intents and purposes you appear to be two different people with two separate accounts. However, I am concerned about the lack of overlapping edits, which I personally find strange considering you have both worked on the same articles at the same general time, yet you never manage to be online at exactly the same time or making edits close together subsequent to those edits. For example, today, you both made edits several minutes apart on NYB's talk page, but I noticed a pattern emerge in the contrib history, namely that whenever closely timed edits were made, one account would log off and another would continue editing such that two accounts would rarely be online at the same time after two closely edits were made. Would you say I'm crazy, or could there be another explanation? Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to re-read the SPI, it was not closed for "lack of evidence," it was closed because we were cleared. You may also want to re-read the definition of meatpuppetry AND the discussion on the SPI. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it up at SPI or ANI. I'm tired of Global Warming alarmists trying to run off anyone that disagrees with them, and if you continue this course, I will seek sanctions based on personal attacks and harassment, especially since you have not read thoroughly the SPI (which addressed all of the points that you attempt to make). If you want to play your silly little AGW alarmist harassment games, do it with someone else - I won't tolerate it - nor will ArbCom. If you don't believe me, test the theory. Otherwise, stay off my talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas -- I'd say you're crazy. There were also several instances of simultaneous edits on the SPI. Not to mention the fact that I have been verified through ArbCom, so if V really wants a legitimate answer to this witch hunt, I suggest she speak with Rlevse, Roger Davies, and Risker, who can vouch for my identity on wiki and off -- they know my real identity and contact information (but will not disclose it) and can conclusively confirm that I am not Greg. I have also verified through Lar with proof of my real identity, IP's, location, etc. I have also verified information with Nuclear Warfare and Brandon on this issue. With that, I expect this line of questioning to stop. Minor4th 05:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Turned on you?

neither of us knew or cared about AGW/CC until we mentioned WMC in regards to administrator abuse in an ill-advised article I wrote. At that point the cabal turned on us - that sounds exciting, yet doesn't match any memories of mine. What is the article in quesiton? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been deleted, and Greg's language is a little dramatic, but the basic information is accurate. We were both blocked for "BLP violations" and both subjected to an SPI because we sourced an article about Wiki administrators with the Solomon bit about your actions in the global warming topic area. You know the one ;) At that time, neither Greg or I had ever heard of you or Solomon for that matter, but that article drew many of the CC editors from out of the ether in support of you. How were we to know you were some sort of untouchable icon around here? By any other standards the Solomon article would have been considered a reliable source -- so we were at a complete loss as to why we were both blocked for BLP violations and without even an explanation. Minor4th 08:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so when GJP says At that point the cabal turned on us what he means is that people voted to delete his nice article? That seems a little more inflated that "over dramatic". As to LS... he has written quite a few hopelessly inaccurate articles about me, so I don't know which you mean. Is it the one ref'd here [1]? Certianly, no, none of LS's articles are RS's - they are all riddled with errors William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason they are not considered RSs is because the POV pushers who own this topic area reject it based solely on their dislike of Solomon and his views, even while accepting far less reliable stuff elsewhere. ATren (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg, don't take the bait. Cla68 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually no: LS's articles aren't RS's because they are junk. Now we know the "mystery article" its possible to find some of the stuff GJP wrote, based on LS. Stuff like "Connolley used his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to the Financial Post, took positions that he disapproved of." This is twaddle - unless you're actually agreeing its true. Are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that particular claim is not true in the numbers -- he obviously misinterpreted the results of an edit counter -- but misinterpreting the intricacies of Wikipedia edit counters doesn't completely discredit him as a source -- do we discredit all sources which have made errors, because if so, there's a certain frequently-cited columnist we will need to purge. And anyway, regardless of his errors reading Wikipedia output, the thrust of his claims had merit, and he was dead right on the Singer-Martian issue, wouldn't you agree? ATren (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit of a shame you can't be honest even here; that LS was writing utter tripe is obvious to any competent wiki editor. And no, he was wrong about the Martians too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's precisely why you shouldn't be editing BLPs, because still don't recognize the wrong that was committed with that Martian stuff. ATren (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A distinct lack of AGF on your part, Cla. But I hope GJP can provide a coherent account - I've still no idea what this deleted article is. Perhaps you know? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was Administrator abuse on Wikipedia (AFD, DRV). It was theoretically well-sourced, but not at all deserving of an article here. NW (Talk) 14:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Your track record on answering questions is abysmal. You have no standing to ask questions of anyone else until that improves substantially. Go bait someone else. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh Lar, isn't that just a teensy bit of a give-away that you're far too involved in this to pretend to be uninvolved? You too need to AGF - there is no baiting here, jsut a request for information. But I'm sure that GJP can answer for himself William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Baiting me won't work either. Go bait someone else. Or better yet, stop baiting completely. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a pun there just waiting to be made, but ... Minor4th 16:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with how good WMC is at it? ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on Lar, you *can* completely ruin any pretence that you're objective, I know it. Just a few more comments and you're there William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're all good at baiting but who's the master baiter? (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fraynework

Hi GregJackP,

Please review the Fraynework Multimedia page, let me know if I'm missing anything. Thanks

Fraynework (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF

Formally, I think, I ought to inform you of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF: GregJackP_has_been_disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was aware that this had been added. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Joseph "Nanmankoi" Newman

Previous declined CSD was an A7 that didn't fit. It's clearly G3 though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. :D GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

This is ridiculous. You are going probably going to cite this action as an example of my abusing my admin tools or something, but: consider yourself banned from Climate change alarmism. When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. Doing so otherwise is blatant disruption. NW (Talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you lift the ban. You are showing blatant favoritism. WMC has reverted 4 times in that article, while I on the other hand have made no further edits to the page, limiting myself to discussion of the matter on talk pages. Please advise how arguing for inclusion of a source is disruptive - that is what we are supposed to do, to take it to talk pages. This is a punitive measure solely due to your bias for WMC and to cover up the fact that no one is taking action on his 3RR violation. I have violated no rule or restriction, nor have I been previously warned, as required by CC probation. I strongly recommend that you reconsider your position. GregJackP Boomer! 12:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The mistake you are making is the same that AQFK has made: the ban was not imposed based on edit count. See [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you the author of the article, or an author? ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Authors of papers are assumed to be in agreement with the contents of the whole paper. If not, then the paper dies. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• A trivial carification, but the block for refactoring comments was taken to ANI by Bishonen, not by WMC. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it - already struck that part of my comments. I know we are not always on the same side of the content issues, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the ban - not necessarily at ANI (although that would also be welcome, regardless of your position for or against). E-mail would also be fine if you don't want to say anything publicly. I'm having a real difficult time understanding the logic of this, if it doesn't involve bias. I stayed off of the article and confined myself to discussion pages deliberately, so that I would not be involved in edit warring. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

I have placed a question at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_by_Jclemens that I would appreciate an answer to. I don't think it's required, but it would be nice. -Selket ^Talk 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? The lynch mob is already forming. I took the matter to the talk pages, for discussion, and did not go back to edit the article because I was trying to do the right thing. NW doesn't take any action against the pro-AGW bunch, just those he disagrees with. For example, when SA completely misrepresented 3 refs as peer-review and stating "denier" instead of what they really said in a BLP, I sent him a copy of the article that was behind a paywall. Nothing happened, SA was on the "right" side. In addition, no one will ever stand up and say that WMC is wrong, so do whatever it is that you wish to do to me. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The atmosphere is now somewhat harsher now than when I asked the question, so I can't blame you for not wanting to fan the flames. --Selket ^Talk 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would you be satisfied to leave the status quo? If you can go off and edit some other articles productives (you are currently only banned from one), then you could come back and request that the sanction be lifted. The situation now is very heated, and we need to let everyone regain composure. We also need ArbCom to finish their work. Some time ago I had requested that editors involved in these disputes voluntarily cease editing in the area. That advice is still relevant. I'd really rather not ban you or anybody else. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would, on one small condition. If it is made clear that I was not trying to misrepresent a source (or alternatively, that my interpretation was consistent with that of other published sources that cited the article), I would be happy to accept a voluntary article ban on Climate change alarmism for 6 months (based on what seemed to be the overwhelming time frame picked). I don't want to fight on this, I just feel like I have to stand up for myself. I didn't want to fight on the ref either, I was trying to do the right thing by taking it to the talk pages. GregJackP Boomer! 15:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The only way to end this mess is to get editors to volunarily agree to behave better. I very much dislike blocks and bans. (Check my logs, I'm all bark, not much bite. I usually only apply indef blocks when an editor is really hopeless, which is not the case with any of the CC participants.) I speak for myself, not for other admins, so we'll have to post something and hope they go along with it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, how do we proceed? Should I wait for you to post and then agree or what? I'm open and agreeable to however you want to handle it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I just posted something. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Greg, I've commented on the proposal, with qualified support. The alternative that your "interpretation was consistent with that of other published sources that cited the article" is an issue that has been discussed at Talk:PD with no evident clarification responding to the concern that the "new references also do not support the text either", and in cases like this you should present and discuss sources on the article talk page to get agreement that they do indeed support what they're being cited to support. If they don't use a version of the term "alarmism", then it seems to be original research to presume that they're sort of related. It would be best to find a source that makes that connection explicit. . . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Thank you for the kind words. Cla68 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Environment

Minor4th said you might be able to help in locating a reference that doesn't seem to exist properly. Could you take a look at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Source request when you have the time? Thank you, NW (Talk) 14:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. Minor4th 04:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate use of sources"

FYI - I've posted the following message at the ArbCom PD talk page.[3] Let's see how things shake out. If things don't go well, I'm wondering if we should draft a petition to ask ArbCom to re-examine Friday's fiasco. If enough editors volunteer to sign the petition, we might get them to re-examine the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Intersting that you call it a "fiasco". I presume you mean, in the sense that you didn't get the result you hoped for, so it was a "fiasco" for your "side". Or was there some other meaning? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why AQFK called it a fiasco. You'll have to ask him, but since he didn't file the appeal, I doubt that he had a result in mind. GregJackP Boomer! 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, GregJackP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Minor4th 05:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Belated thanks for the kind words...it really made my day. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TDSL v Waste Management

I would very much like you to consider deleting the article Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding or removing my name from the article. I have already been deemed to be "not notable" on Wikipedia, and this article continues to surface in Google and other searches which hurt my reputation and casts on-going doubts about my reputation. In addition it is an orphaned article with no links to it that I am aware of, especially once the the article on me was removed. Among the reasons I would ask you to consider are:

The article is not otherwise suitable to an Encyclopedia

It disregards the my privacy as a living person

It presents possible business harm to a Living Person (me)

I am a BLP who is relatively unknown other than in Austin

Austex • Talk 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I won't voluntarily pull the article, but if you nominate it for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD, I will state that I have no objection to deletion on those grounds. GregJackP Boomer! 20:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Greg, please see here [4]. I've started copy/edit and I'd like your eyes on it. Also see the talk page for questions. I would have posted it on the FAR page, but I had to stop in the middle of what I was doing, and just stuck it in userspace as a placeholder. Minor4th 01:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So close!

I really like the improvements done on the Menominee Tribe v. United States. So, seeing that it failed the nomination to Featured article was very disappointing. However, I would still like to extend a chi-miigwech for all the wonderful time and work you have put into it. CJLippert (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I hope I'm not interrupting you from the exciting drama elsewhere, but I did significant work on Sean Bielat and in the process, removed your {{refimprove}} template. Just letting you know in case you want to make sure it's all in line. Thanks! jheiv ^{talk contribs} 11:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

TDSL versus WMI

All edits have been reverted. Also I have suggested several edits on the article talk page using the "Request edit" template for CIO edits. I know you will not agree with many of them but I hope you will try to consider them from a completely neutral point of view seperate from the original article which was written as an off-shoot of the D.Martin article. Thanks. Austex • Talk 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have concluded my suggestions for edits to the article talk page HERE

Your GA nomination of Bryan v. Itasca County

The article Bryan v. Itasca County you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Aaron north (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [5]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [6]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Va601cc

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Va601cc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

I happened to see the thread...by chance, because I usually avoid that cesspool. I should have said this at the time, but better late than never - that harassment was reprehensible. I'm sorry it happened, I'm sorry that your association with Wikipedia brought you to the attention of that crowd, and I hate the fact that Wikipedia does nothing to protect editors against harassment if people have the sense to move it off-wiki. Guettarda (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg can't edit his talk page because he was blocked and his talk page and email access was cut off. He asked me to tell you that he appreciates your message a great deal and although there were times you were on differing sides of the issues he has always found you to be articulate and fair. He wishes you the best on Wiki and elsewhere. (By the way, I have retired from Wiki and don't intend to continue editing, but I made this post at Greg's request. I expect I will now too be blocked for delivering this thank you note.). Best, Minor4th 01:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is very mysterious. I've seen references to it in various places and have no idea what it is about. Reading between the lines, it seems as if GJP made a "legal threat" (whatever that means) in an email. I don't see anything on-wiki so that might be what happened. If so, he should be permitted the opportunity to withdraw that alleged threat and continue to edit Wikipedia. He has been more harshly dealt with than any other editor in the CC case, and there is no evident reason for that. I surmise he may have been acting emotionally in reaction to the "harassment" (which, again, I have no idea what that means). An indefinite ban seems harsh, and removing his ability to email makes it impossible for him to rectify the situation if he so wished. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to belatedly strike out most of my post above. While I'm sympathetic to GJP, I just don't know the facts. Let it go by saying that it's mysterious. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case amendment

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

• 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
• 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the joys of being involved in the Climate Change ArbCom case: Endless requests for clarification. Here's another.

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, GregJackP/Archive 5! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Block Appeal

Following a review of an unblock appeal, the Arbitration Committee has agreed to an unblock conditional on GregJackP not getting involved in Climate Change and New Religious Movements topic areas. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Envy (hip-hop group)

Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Envy (hip-hop group), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Double-platinum certification and Grammy award-winner is definitely a claim of importance. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Seneca vs. Christy Review

I fixed up the image captions for Andrews and Fuller. I also cleaned up the lead to where it is appropriate length. If there is anything else you need help with, just ask.Oakley77 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering, do we really need the legal citation hyperlinks. Is it required?Oakley77 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The hyperlink part is not required, but the rest of the ref needs to be there (i.e., case name/litigants). For ease of use, you can use the USSC case template - {{Ussc | volume | page | year }}. If you use this, it will automatically insert the hyperlink. You can also cut down on coding by naming your refs, using a example from this case:

<refname="SenecaCase">' ' Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy ' ', {{Ussc|162|283|1896}} </ref>, which will produce this in your reference list: Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896)

Then each place you need to reference the case, all you have to do is type in <refname="SenecaCase" /ref> and it ties the new reference to the original.

For the state case cites, use the Cite court template - {{cite court |litigants= |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= |date= |url= |accessdate= |quote=}} with whichever parameters you wish.

The main point is that the case needs to be fully spelled out in the reference list at least the first time, then it can go to the shorter version. Pinpointing the exact page is nice, but not required.

GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sunjung Kim

Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sunjung Kim, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there is enouch assertion of importance here to pas the fairly low bar of A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Princess Theodora deletion nomination

I am confused by your comment that the email received does not equate to an unrestricted license. In the copyright guideline I followed, I was informed that the copyright holder must grant permission via email. Is there some specific language that you are looking for to grant such permission? Please advise. I am working in good faith to make this page acceptable, but I feel that I am now being vexed with technicalities. What is it you wish me to do in order to prove I have permission to use this copyright holder's material? Please advise soonest.

(Tonypanaccio (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

I have created a temp page per your request at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Princess_Theodora_von_Auersperg/Temp, and I have emailed the language found on the Wikipedia consent page to representatives of Princess Theodora for consideration.

(Tonypanaccio (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

It looks like you understand what is needed. Basically, the copyright holder has to grant the rights not just to Wikipedia, but to anyone else that wishes to use the material. GregJackP Boomer! 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there -- I just received this email from Princess Theodora:

Princess Theodora von Auerspreg Wikepidia Page - Copyright Consent Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:48 AM From: "Princess Theodora von Auersperg" <theodora@princesstheodora.com> Add sender to Contacts To: tonypanaccio@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Panaccio,

I hereby affirm that I, Princess Theodora von Auersperg, is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of my biographical information and story contained on my Web site at www.princesstheodora.com. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Princess Theodora von Auersperg Founder, CEO and copyright holder at all content at www.princesstheodora.com May 30, 2012

---

Princess Theodora von Auersperg, Inc.

2608 S. Kings Road | Virginia Beach | VA 23452 | P: 757.486.2420 | F: 757.486.2420

www.PrincessTheodora.com | facebook.com/PrincessTheodora | @PrincessTheodor

Is this the proper license agreement? Thanks!

(Tonypanaccio (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC))

It looks OK, but you would need to run it past a copyright clerk to be sure. Also, if you plan on writing another article on her, I would do so in your userspace first, then ask for an admin to look at it since the first attempt was deleted after an AFD discussion. You should make sure that you show that she is notable according to Wikipedia standards and that you have both verifiable and reliable sources to support that. Good luck. GregJackP Boomer! 11:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bladder Run

I've removed your CSD tag on this article because it has one solid source from the Birmingham Mail, in their Top Stories section. This doesn't mean it meets criteria for inclusion, but it does mean that it isn't eligible for speedy deletion, as the A7 criteria for deletion is rather narrow. You might consider looking for other sources, or perhaps waiting a short while and sending it to AFD if you still feel it should be deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Vector (artiste) nomination

The page has been previously nominated and deleted but I recently created a draft that i've been working on here - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Seandbadest/sandbox . I also got help from one of your staffs in getting to this stage and he gave me the go ahead to put this up. ref - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Seandbadest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seandbadest (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Koppōjutsu

Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Koppōjutsu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: facebook refers to this article, originally deleted as prod. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Criminal_due_process

In light of your prior participation in the discussion, it may interest you that the template has been nominated for deletion. Savidan 19:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

This was a little bitey given the sourcing available and that the creator has only 3 edits... Nikthestoned 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Speed Deletion ThePrimate

Hallo. Thank you for your warning and explanations about our mistakes. The page we began to write this morning is not about a company or an individual or an organization corresponding to a private interests. "ThePrimate", in fact, is a web platform that, despite a private company (Xoolab, X23 Ltd.) is to consider the owner and the author, answers to a public interest and aims to achieve common needs. In particular, the page "ThePrimate" in the italian wikipedia exists since 2009. In the meantime, since its creation and launch, the web environment "ThePrimate" adopted a huge quantity of innovations, so that we persuaded to introduce a set of updates. Since this year "ThePrimate" has been adopted by a relevant number of European public entities, most of all universities and public centres of research, who decided to use "ThePrimate" as a technological platform to support their projects to be submitted to European Calls; as a consequence, we thought that also an english version of the voice "ThePrimate" had to be created. We can give also further information about the public nature of the subject "ThePrimate": for example, it was created in 2009 due to an inter-institutional agreement between the Italian government bodies - in particular ICCU and CRUI Foundation - and today it is operating due to inter-operating protocols with EUROPEANA. For all these reasons, and others that we could claim to demonstrate that the voice "ThePrimate" does not correspond to any of the presumed issues determining its deletion, we kindly ask you to allow us to carry on its creation and editing. We really apologize to have started too much early the first step of textual compositing, so leaving the voice as an isolated and incomplete article. Many thanks. --Theprimate en (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprimate en (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Femficatio

Hello GregJackP, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Femficatio to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

CSD at Widow Sunday

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I challenged your WP:CSD A7 at Widow Sunday. While there isn't much in the way of claims of importance in the article text, three of the references tend to establish notability (currently references 7,8,9). I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that those three sources qualify as reliable independent sources, which if true would go a long way towards establishing notability. My opinion that they qualify as reliable sources would will most likely be disputed, and consensus could well end up against me on the question of notability if the article is nominated at WP:AFD, but I think the sources move the article out of Speedy Deletion territory. Monty₈₄₅ 02:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NP, I'll AfD it. Thanks for the heads up. GregJackP Boomer! 03:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Levi Cooper

I have declined your CSD here; he certainly claims significance. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Ian Shaw (producer) and Ty Segall. Please remember that significance is a lower test than notability; it is merely "does this article make a claim that the subject is important in some way? Is that claim not obviously a hoax?" Ironholds (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Season of love

Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Season of love, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: TV shows are not eligble subjects for criterium A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio of Mermaid Avenue

It's possible that the website sourced the biography from the Wikipedia page. -CTS talk 04:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing, but I could find nothing that would so indicate and the other page is marked with a copyright notice. GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it was copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around. -CTS talk 06:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The speedy deletion notice says that "This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving." But the wikipedia page has much more information on it that other page, so that criterion is not shown to be met. Therefore I removed the speedy deletion notice. Rossetti29 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh ya, also removed it from Mermaid Avenue Vol. II for the same reason.Rossetti29 (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for finding a cite Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation Request

Refer your note on my talk page about advertising. Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Front_desk and the external link to http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9804/19/mccartney.obit2/ ... How does this pass wikipedia standards? My links were related to the wikipages they were added to because they supplemented the information and had no commercial leaning. Seek to understand. Drwhitefield (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Besomi

You restored the AfD template but not the CSD [7]. I assumed that you just did not notice that the CSD template was removed as well, and restored it. Pls if you meant to decline the speedy deletion, remove it with an appropriate comment. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:Divergent (film)

Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Divergent (film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for this edit! I had looked for an applicable speedy deletion criterion, but I missed that one. Huon (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Review Question

Hi GregJackP. You recently declined http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Max_Highstein "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

So, I'm kind of stumped at this point. The review includes three citations from verifiable sources, two of which reference awards in the artist's industry, and this is an artist with a long list of contributions over 25 years. I've seen far less notable musicians on WP, less substantiated. Did you by chance miss the citations? If not, can you please offer some specific input?

Racquelpalmese (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. First I noted that there had been no refs added between the declination of Ktr101 and the latest request for review. I then looked closely at the refs. Allmusic is fine - a reliable source. About.com is not a reliable source - see multiple entries on WP:RSN. New Mexico Music Awards is borderline - nowhere near the Grammys for example. See WP:MUSICBIO for notability standards for musicians. The next three refs are all promotional/sales oriented and are not reliable. I hope this helps. GregJackP Boomer! 04:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy declined

You nominated the article The Walls for speedy deletion; however, it does not appear to meet the criteria. The article has been greatly expanded over the years it has existed. If some lines or sections are copyvios, they can be removed but this is more a matter for the full Wikipedia:Copyright violations to sort through. Rmhermen (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Duracz family article

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Duracz (nobles) Hi. I found the references to the Duracz family in 3 books from pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność - rody szlacheckie (Ref. 1, 3 and Ref. 19 in "listy dodatkowij"). Now they are references 1, 3 and 4 of the family article correspondingly. I feel that now the article satisfies the notability criteria which were specified earlier. Note that all of the people mentioned in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Request_for_Expert are members of the family. I have started a brief description of individuals of the family in the article and have generally expanded it. I will continue to develop the article. If you make the decision to accept the article now, please rename it to "Duracz family" following, for example, this precedent Durazzo_family Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duracz (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested PROD

I see that you proposed Jean François Porchez for deletion. The PROD has been contested, with no reason given, by a new single purpose account, no doubt a sockpuppet of a blocked user. I have taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean François Porchez. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Review Question

Hi Greg Jack P. You recently declined the article I wrote (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brandon_Steiner). Was wondering if you had any suggestions to improve the article for re-submission and (hopefully) acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey once more. I edited the piece pretty heavily, and I was wondering if you could take another look. Would be much appreciate. Golombjesse (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See the comments I left at AfC. This article needs a lot of work and needs to be more balanced. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Eisia india

A tag has been placed on User talk:Eisia india, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK - and I'm being notified for what reason? GregJackP Boomer! 14:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's because you're the original creator of the article. Automated thing by Twinkle. You can disregard the message if you like, since you're not the one spamming the page. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)